ComeBackZinc

It's a blast. Whatever else is true: I love my day-to-day life so, so much right now. If I end up at Starbucks, well. So be it, I guess.

Fine by me.

In law, this: led to this: The problem, in part, is that addressing the problem in the TT job market simply on the supply end plays perfectly into the hands of the neoliberalization of the university and the all-administrative takeover, which is good for no one except those administrators. What we need to do is for people within the system to keep fighting to reverse the TT trend (which I'm naive enough to think is possible) while simultaneously counseling individuals about the current state of the TT market so that we can address this at least partially at the supply side too.

I mean, I don't disagree with you. But they said the same things about the legal job market-- it's a safe haven! It's a cash cow!-- and then the legal job market utterly collapsed. The reality is that we're living in an era of 1. Automation cutting the knees out from more and more jobs 2. Weak aggregate demand 3. A conscious decision from both corporate power and our political system to undercut worker power So it wouldn't surprise me at all if the MBA market nosedives as well. We graduate 350,000 Business BAs a year in this country. Tons of them are not getting jobs.

#1, way to edit out your jerk-tastic response gif to despejado #2, you have shown up here, and with maximal smugness and provocation, made an affirmative claim-- that humanities MA degrees (which you have since changed to English MA degrees) do not enjoy the significant economic advantage that MA holders writ-large enjoy. You know that general advantage exists, but here it is anyway, from BLS data: Now within that general MA slice is humanities MAs. As you've said, and I concede, it's possible that humanities MAs are a significant outlier from this general data. But you have to actual prove claims like that from reference to responsibly-generated data. You say you're an academic; academics show proof. And while we do need to look at humanities-specific (or now English-specific, since you moved the goal posts) outcomes, the general trend is the best available evidence we have right now. Against that you've offered... well, nothing. And you've done it while dancing back and forth between being a troll and being someone who wants to really engage. I don't mind engaging and I can tolerate trolling, but I don't like jumping from one foot to another. I'm not sure what you think you're accomplishing here, but you clearly have a narrative you want to advance but don't want to bother to prove. That's not responsible, and I think you know that.

I'm not willing to concede the general statement; he's offered no evidence for his general statement.

One, I'm not sure who you think is making that point or why you think it's being debated here, where a very specific situation was brought up. Two, as I've said, there's in fact quite compelling evidence to make the claim that getting an MA in general makes you, on average, better rather than worse off-- economically, which seems to be the only way you want to discuss-- and further that you haven't done anything at all to support your claim that humanities MAs or English MAs specifically don't match that general trend. You've merely said you have anecdotes, which do not rise to your own standard of evidence about the masses. And I say this as someone who has devoted significant amounts of time to assessing similar claims, such as the notion that there's a STEM shortage and that STEM graduates enjoy better outcomes than other BAs, neither of which is supportable via evidence. You're merely playing to cultural assumptions and not offering evidence, then acting like people who are pointing that out are wrong. If you have evidence to offer, present it. But your supreme self-satisfaction does not rise to the level of evidence.

Depends on where you set the numbers. From the 2007-2008 hiring season to the 2009-20010 hiring season, yes, the TT jobs were cut in half. That's the MLA's numbers.

Some people are very critical of MAPH, calling it a "cash cow" program. I find that unfair. I know that many people have gone to MAPH and have gone on to successful careers. However, it's the case that there's very little funding at all, and that it's very expensive. Also, fairly or unfairly, some of that stigma may hurt you in the future. But on the other hand, you might forge really great connections. I just can't in good conscience tell someone to take tens of t housands of dollars in loan debt out to pay for a humanities MA.

Right. I mean, look, I make the pessimistic case all the time, here and in real life. And I think for many people this just doesn't make sense financially. But look at me personally: for two years, I applied for jobs. I was not picky. I applied to dozens of jobs every week while I did substitute teaching for $65 a day, on any days that they had work for me. For my trouble, I got I think 4 phone interviews, two in person interviews, and one offer. That offer would have had me working 45-50 hours a week, making something like $22,000 a year, with no benefits and no meaningful opportunity for advancement. In grad school, with supplemental income from freelance writing, editing gigs, tutoring gigs, etc, I'm making just about as much, with great health insurance, flexible hours, and an immensely fulfilling day-to-day life. In the most self-interested terms, even economic terms, I'm coming out ahead here. Like I said: I tell people not to go all the time. But given that I know the odds and that I am preparing backup plans if I don't get hired, this is a perfectly rational decision for me.

You'll have to forgive me if I come across as aggressive. I work here, at a "STEM uber alles" university, with people in ed psych, computer science, and statistics. It's not unusual for people from other fields who, knowing I'm coming from an English department, assume that they can throw out any argument about empirical evidence or numbers and I will be intimidated and won't be able to respond substantively. It's created a tendency for me to be forward in my responses. If I was rude, I do apologize. It wasn't my intent.

Here's what I'm saying. I'm a PhD student studying, among other things, higher education policy. I am also a freelance writer who has been writing about higher education for a long time. And I have heard similarly anecdotal claims that MA degrees are useless for a long time. So I am excited to be taking part in a research project, along with a tenured professor and a dean, to investigate the claim that you're making-- that an MA degree in the humanities does not carry with it the income and unemployment advantage that MA degrees generally carry. Like another of my pet obsessions, the unsupportable notion of a STEM surplus, this is an idea that is bandied about quite a bit, and yet for which there is little or no responsibly generated evidence. The current study is only beginning. I'm not yet ready to say that humanities MAs definitively have a similar economic advantage to MAs writ large. What is clear, however, is that the affirmative case that you are now making seems based more on cultural assumptions about the irrelevance of the humanities than hard data. Like the notion that a computer science degree is a ticket to the good life, regardless of where you go to school, this is an idea with more cultural force than evidentiary backing. As you say: there's limited data, but what data exists does not demonstrate such a disadvantage. In contrast with what you're saying, there appear to be a far broader range of occupations that value an MA degree than you indicate. As far as you looking down your nose at the jobs that you could potentially get with such a degree, well, besides the condescension of what you're saying, that's moving the goal posts. My point is merely that an MA degree has economic advantages, and that by getting one before you go into the PhD cycle, you give yourself an out-- and an out is a very valuable thing indeed, when we're talking about a horrendous academic job market that shows no signs of getting better. Now it happens that I would tell anyone not to go to graduate school in the humanities, in general, unless they literally can't live with themselves without doing it. And I would particularly tell them never to go without funding. Also, as I said repeatedly (but you uncharitably left out), it really, really depends, like all things in this process. Personally, I think that if the OP is finding it difficult to get into the best programs now, it makes a good deal of sense to pursue funded MA degrees in order to try and get into those prestigious programs in the future. Like you, I don't think anyone should be going into a PhD program in literature if they are intent on getting a TT job unless they are at a pinnacle program, and should be prepared to walk away from academia even if they do, because in recent years even graduates from Harvard and Berkeley have not been guaranteed success. But the OP asked a very limited question and I answered it, in a qualified and limited manner, the best way I could. Sure: don't go to MAPH, coffeeandcomics. Don't pay for an MA. And if there's anything else you want to do in the world, go do that instead of going into humanities graduate school. But if you're dead set on this, then yes, getting a funded MA can be a productive way to move forward. And exponentialdecay, if you want to make positive claims about economics and education, don't pre-announce that your evidence is anecdotal and expect empirical researchers not to respond critically.

By the way: I would not pay for an MA out of pocket, and I particularly not do so at MAPH. But then, that's not the question that was asked.

Luckily, I have more than anecdata. I have investigated this question at length, with responsibly-generated empirical evidence. There is a premium for all MA holders over those with only a BA. (Even MFA students enjoy an advantage.) Sure, some of this is ability effects, but there are a large number of jobs that require an MA degree but that do not stipulate a particular department or field. For example, in a number of states, public school teachers have a contractually-mandated pay premium for those with a masters. As teaching in a public district is a major source of consistent employment for people with such degrees, this is not an insignificant criterion. There's little doubt that paying for an MA degree can end up providing little financial benefit, but aggregated over all those who hold an MA in the humanities, there is no legitimate argument that there is no advantage. And since the OP already stated that the question is whether to get an MA or go straight for a PhD, the question is not whether to go to graduate school but how best to go about it. Please, don't try to speak dispositively when you've already admitted that you lack evidence for what you're saying.

I can't tell you what to do. I find it odd to say that going to an MA program would prove a waste of time and money. From a purely financial point of view (so setting aside the educational value just for discussion), people with a master's degree enjoy a significant advantage in both income and unemployment rate over those with a BA. It's true that you will earn an MA at most any program that accepts you as straight from undergrad. However, getting your MA first allows you the flexibility of deciding if you want to continue on the PhD track after several years as a professional student (and hopefully teacher). This is an important benefit, particularly if the decision will be to pursue a PhD with the intention of going on the academic job market afterwards. It's a major commitment to decide that you want to be a life-long academic without ever having been a grad student. Also, while it varies widely from department to department, don't assume that going straight into a PhD program means a fast track of two years of course work and straight into prelims/dissertation. It's not at all unusual for programs that don't require an MA to extend coursework. You likely will finish sooner than if you get a separate MA first, but that doesn't mean you'll finish two or three years sooner. If you want to pursue particular departments, investigate them specifically. Some departments don't allow students with just a BA apply for the PhD program; some will only accept MA students into a terminal MA program; and some only accept students who don't yet have an MA. Beyond those requirements, there's also schools that technically allow either but are much more likely to take one or the other. You really have to investigate individual places. Write emails to the DGS or grad program assistant; they'll likely be very forthcoming. Or investigate with current students or on here. For me, personally, my MA was a no-brainer. I really learned so much in the program that I was able to put together a far, far better set of applications for PhD programs than I had before, in large measure because I knew much more about my field and my place within it. I also made connections that helped me in a variety of ways. But people certainly can and do go into PhD programs without an MA and succeed. Since you framed it this way: personally, given how competitive it is out there, if the choice was between taking a less-prestigious PhD program with worse hiring numbers and getting an MA with the intention of applying to more competitive programs in the future, I would go with the latter. But that's just me, and there's likely no one right option for you. Good luck.

There's nothing you can do but wait. Listen, though: while it's potentially the case that this person might be offended, I find that unlikely, and there's no chance that they're going to rescind your acceptance or anything. Seriously. Just wait and see. You sent an honest explanation, and honestly, the prof is probably so busy s/he probably hasn't noticed.

Hang in there.

Now I look like a TOTAL ASSHOLE because I upvoted your rejection. Ugh.

I think this may make a lot of people smile. It's by a woman who got a PhD in literature who didn't go into academia. http://thebillfold.com/2014/03/what-do-you-do-with-a-ph-d-in-literature/

Hey, you're speaking my language in terms of connecting the academic job market to the broader job market. (Here's Chomsky on that score.) However, let's be clear what we're talking about: if the idea is that the odds of getting full-time work generally are about the same as getting a TT professorship, then that's not close to true. Look, I'm an advocate of taking a holistic view of academia, I think there are perfectly compelling arguments made as to why one would go, and people should make adult choices and not look back. 100% on board there. I just want us to be clear: if your goal is to get a tenure-track job as a professor in a university, understand the odds. That doesn't mean don't try; people try to be actors in Hollywood and professional athletes, etc, even knowing the odds. Just know the odds. So let's switch it up! My stance is just this: everyone who goes into this planning on getting a TT job should be prepared for the market and aware of the odds. If people are prepared and aware, then it's like any other of life's choices: nobody else can make it for you. Just be real with yourself about whether you can live without a TT job after you collect the degree. That's all I'm ever trying to say.

I have met many people in academia or applying to get in who have been profoundly ignorant about the status of the job market. There's also dozens of essays out there by people who say that they didn't know, which you can easily find. And many of the people who claim to know reflect a pre-2008 understanding. Before the financial crisis, it was really, really bad. People wrote pieces declaring the death of the humanities, etc etc. Then, afterwards, the numbers were cut in half. A lot of people seem to understand the old "this is bad" numbers but not the new "this is so much worse" numbers. And this is to say nothing of the potential for people to say they know but assume that they will be the exception rather than part of the rule. What I don't understand is, if everybody knows this information, why do so many people flip out when it's brought up? If everybody is being coolly rational and informed about this, why the heat and anger when the very words "job market" appear on this board? That, I don't understand. If you're all informed, that's great. But we have every reason to believe that there are people who aren't informed, and that's who threads like this are for. If you're not one of them, just move on. Don't click the thread again. I don't understand why people can't accept the fact that some people aren't really aware and may need to hear this. It's not an insult to you if you're one of the ones who do know. When you flip out about people pointing out facts that you acknowledge are facts, it suggests that you haven't 100% come to terms with all this.

I don't have a "top four" but I know Anne Ruggles-Gere at Michigan is one of mine. A brilliant scholar in so many ways. She really has shown how you can do research from across different traditions and genres-- empirical, theoretical, political, cultural, historical-- and synthesize them into an exemplary career. An inspiration for me.

I think everyone can agree on one important thing: everybody entering this process, or considering entering it, should be rigorous and ruthless in researching the job market before they apply anywhere. Lots of people have complained, in recent years, that they were not made aware of just how bad it was before they started. Don't be one of them. Do the research, especially on trends since the 2008 collapse, and then make an informed choice based on that research.

Louisville is a wonderful program in a great town.

Yay! Good luck on funding.